OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS
AIJSTI N
b
-c-
,--
d”’ ’
:. ‘_
,, ”
,.,~~~ $@
The Texas 3tats Soard of k%dicialXxasimrb)
913494% Texas Eiak Buil%ing
xxa&w, Teas n
_. ‘_
787
The Texas Btatu Soasd of Kedioal ?~a&ners, Pa@ 2
this question, it is, of COUPRO, necessary that the Dwrd dster-
tine when the gm%leulcr t?plioas& attazded and gaduated from
a partioularnedloal sahool, aad detcrtina whotimr mch medical
school was, at t%% tihX+,e *repUta~Uiuedhal ~Ch00lr" If a
partloular~~txiioal school, during a cart&n period of time, was
not a nputable mdioal scbcol, tha Emrd omnot deter&no that
to be true and at the sapi tl~e permit a;Tplioants who graduated
tram that school duriw thut period of tim to take the exorsl-
RRtlORS. It in tha chsractar of the mdlaal school frm which
the ap?llcsnt C;raQuated which oontrols, and not the time of his
application to the ijoardfor exiif&iation.
The resoluttimzassed by the "3oardIs not ontlrely
ofear. :i:8 uro unable to dater&n8 rhehhar the Board, an Keg 21,
1959, d&cm&nod that she Chicago Kedioal School was not at
that tins.and never had been a wr8pUtiible r;sdlcnlSO~OO~,~ with-
in the noaning of th% statutes, or wliihethor
tiiefinding of the
8ocrd with resyect to tho r~putableness.ofthe school had only
prospeotiveoperation, or whether ~tiha finding of the Board with
F. raspsot t;o tka reputabl%n%as of the school had refereaoe to a
statod period of tino~n&.eqmassctd in the r%solutlon.Wh~thss
been said above, in aoutrtictioa with srhathairbesn said by this
ddpartmcntin opinion So. O-2930; however, is, %webelieve, en-
tirely atiflclent~toenalrlsthe Eoard to deterlrine wL;etherthe
particular a~@.cafits for exauimtion shsuld be permitted to
tRk0 .EQCbOX~R~tiJRfl.
Yours very truly